denominational schooling?

Jarndyce

Jakkass, while you advocate critical thought (and rightly so), I notice that your current reading list comprises solely of pro-religion works (I am referring to your signature).

I would like to recommend a video for you, the relevant part of which takes no longer than 40mins to view. I would hope that you approach it with an open mind in respect of your existing beliefs. It provides a good argument (though not as detailed as both you or I would like) to show that Christianity is based on pagan beliefs and allegorical myth. You may well have heard of it - 'The Zeitgeist'.

Here is the link for the Zeitgeist movie. It is the movie on the right hand side, 'Zeitgeist - The Movie', not 'Zeitgeist - Addendum', though both are well worth watching in their entirety.

I would look forward to hearing your thoughts on the first 40mins of 'The Zeitgeist', should you choose to watch it.

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

Jakkass, while you advocate critical thought (and rightly so), I notice that your current reading list comprises solely of pro-religion works (I am referring to your signature).

At present yes. I have read critiques of Christianity in the past.

Jarndyce wrote: »

I would like to recommend a video for you, the relevant part of which takes no longer than 40mins to view. I would hope that you approach it with an open mind in respect of your existing beliefs. It provides a good argument (though not as detailed as both you or I would like) to show that Christianity is based on pagan beliefs and allegorical myth. You may well have heard of it - 'The Zeitgeist'.

I have heard about it, and it has been thoroughly refuted, with many of the sources used in the film, coming from one writer with many pen-names. Highly dubious.

The commentary on Mithra, is particularly flawed. Mithra was not born of a virgin according to Mithraism, rather he was born as a fully grown man from a rock! Not to mention that we don't have any texts of Mithraism that pre-date the New Testament. Similar criticisms are true of the accounts of Horus, and Osiris.

Ensure your scepticism goes into these sources as well.

Jarndyce wrote: »

I would look forward to hearing your thoughts on the first 40mins of 'The Zeitgeist', should you choose to watch it.

I've watched it already. Take a search of Zeitgeist in the Christianity forum.

Jarndyce

I'll check that out. I'm not aware that it has been thoroughly refuted? Much less so than the Bible, that's for sure! While it's not a rock of Biblical refutation, it is however food for thought. I have not had time to check out every source but all of those that I check out appeared valid. As I said, it's not as comprehensive and reliable as I would like, but it provides a solid basis of argument. Again, to say that it has been thoroughly refuted seems more inaccurate than any alleged inaccuracy therein.

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

I'll check that out. I'm not aware that it has been thoroughly refuted? Much less so than the Bible, that's for sure! While it's not a rock of Biblical refutation, it is however food for thought.

The Bible hasn't been refuted once. It's been criticised certainly, but refuted is an entirely different thing. Whether such criticism is valid is up for debate.

Zeitgeist on the other hand, has been shown to be fraudulent. Mithraism is different than the way it is portrayed in the documentary. This is true of the other pagan traditions in the film. The case for plagiarism of Christianity from them is minimal if not obsolete.

Jarndyce wrote: »

I have not had time to check out every source but all of those that I check out appeared valid.

You really should if you are to make accusations of same for other people.

Jarndyce wrote: »

As I said, it's not as comprehensive and reliable as I would like, but it provides a solid basis of argument. Again, to say that it has been thoroughly refuted seems more inaccurate than any alleged inaccuracy therein.

Take a Google search even "Zeitgeist Refuted" and see how much material there is that deals with the claims in that film. Skeptic's magazine even did a critique.

In addition, they did a documentary in favour of 9/11 being a conspiracy. I take it you subscribe to this view as well?

Jarndyce

Do actually think that Jonah lived for three days inside a whale?

When Satan took Jesus to the top of a mountain to view the entire world, this is only possible if the world is flat. I think that has been scientifically proven?

Virgin births?

Resurrections?

Talking to burning bushes?

Parting seas?

Walking on water?

Talking snakes?

The list in endless. I do not wish any school to teach such nonsense to my children. There is plenty of childrens' books out there that provide better entertainment for children, without threatening them that they will burn in hell.

Jarndyce

As for 9/11. I don't know the exact details of what happened. Very few people do. What I do know, however, is that the truth has not been made available. Can you suggest any plausible reason why the collapse of Building 7 was omitted from the 9/11 Report? A 47 floor skyscraper that collapsed from 'fire damage'? The only skyscraper in history to have ever collapsed in such a way. Regardless of some of the theories as to who was behind the atrocities, the facts of physics and architecture raise questions that have not been answered.

If you accept everything in the 9/11 Report then I suspect that you would also accept the Warren Commission's Report in the same unquestioning way. For someone who claims to address issues using critical thinking, it appears that you do anything but.

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

The list in endless. I do not wish any school to teach such nonsense to my children.

Good point. What about other people who do believe who want their children to learn about faith?

That's why I have suggested that both secular schools, and faith schools should exist. I believe you should have the right not to have your children learn about this, but I do believe the Constitution (rightfully) puts across the parents right to provide for the moral and religious education of their child.

All the examples, above, can be dealt with with a correct context reading of the passage and even with a bit of research. It involves more than a face-value reading, which is more akin to those with whom you criticise for saying that the earth was created in 6 24-hour days.

Jarndyce wrote: »

There is plenty of childrens' books out there that provide better entertainment for children, without threatening them that they will burn in hell.

Jarndyce, I've been more than respectful to you in this discussion. Shouldn't I be able to expect the same in return?

cat42

Jakkass wrote: »

Thanks for the post, I'll try my best to get through it, my answer might be inadequate but it is something!



As a philosophy student I would encourage people to read philosophy, not to be drawn too far away with it

My sentiments on religion exactly!:rolleyes:

As for the whole denominational question...well i attended a very Catholic school..and as a non religious person it was nothing less than terrifying! We had 'RE' alright and you could even agrue that we learnt about other religions but in this awfull air of disbelief and supposed superiority where even when we did discuss other religions their was always this assumption that they were a load of crap.

Ironically i was the only one against the death penatly in my ultra Catholic religion class...

philologos

cat42 wrote: »

As for the whole denominational question...well i attended a very Catholic school..and as a non religious person it was nothing less than terrifying! We had 'RE' alright and you could even agrue that we learnt about other religions but in this awfull air of disbelief and supposed superiority where even when we did discuss other religions their was always this assumption that they were a load of crap.

This is why there should be alternatives, there needs to be more balance in the education system and I wouldn't deny that at all.

Personally I benefited a good bit from my CofI education, although I didn't appreciate it until the end of my time at school.

cat42 wrote: »

Ironically i was the only one against the death penatly in my ultra Catholic religion class...

Support for the death penalty also exists in populations that would be very much secular. In the UK there are a lot of people who think the death penalty should be reintroduced. 67% supported it in 2003.

Jarndyce

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe you should have the right not to have your children learn about this, but I do believe the Constitution (rightfully) puts across the parents right to provide for the moral and religious education of their child.

The Constitution was published in 1937, a different era in many many ways. If people did not attend church on Sunday they would be ostracized in their communities. Contraceptives were illegal. The homosexual act of buggery was a crime. Each of these three despicable circumstances are directly attributable to Catholic Church and its wild dogma.

Jakkass wrote: »

All the examples, above, can be dealt with with a correct context reading of the passage and even with a bit of research. It involves more than a face-value reading, which is more akin to those with whom you criticise for saying that the earth was created in 6 24-hour days.

I can only describe that as a cop-out. You made the same point about passages of Scripture which condemns homosexuals to death. Context cannot justify such passages where those passages continue to be believed. I would have more respect for someone who would take an a la carte approach and say "No. That offends both my intelligence and moral compass. I excise that passage from my Biblical beliefs because it is so patently vile." But to merely refer to the nebulous cop-out of 'context' and seemingly continue to, at a minimum, tacitly approve such hate is truly mind-boggling.

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

The Constitution was published in 1937, a different era in many many ways. If people did not attend church on Sunday they would be ostracized in their communities. Contraceptives were illegal. The homosexual act of buggery was a crime. Each of these three despicable circumstances are directly attributable to Catholic Church and its wild dogma.

I wouldn't attribute teaching ones child about ones faith and values to be in any way ethically wrong. Indeed, all parents whether religious or not do this in the home.

Jarndyce wrote: »

I can only describe that as a cop-out. You made the same point about passages of Scripture which condemns homosexuals to death. Context cannot justify such passages where those passages continue to be believed. I would have more respect for someone who would take an a la carte approach and say "No. That offends both my intelligence and moral compass. I excise that passage from my Biblical beliefs because it is so patently vile." But to merely refer to the nebulous cop-out of 'context' and seemingly continue to, at a minimum, tacitly approve such hate is truly mind-boggling.

It's not a cop-out at all. All of those passages, when looked at in context all make sense. Including the ones you regarded as being heinous a few pages ago. If one read the entirety of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, one would soon see that there is much more to them than what you have pointed out.

Likewise, in the case of Jesus and Satan, Jonah and all the other examples. One can look up commentaries, and think about the implications of what is written there.

Your criticism, really only works if God doesn't exist. All these things would be possible, if God really did exist in the world. However, if God does not exist, then of course they wouldn't be at all viable. It all comes down to mere assumption, and if that is the calibre of this debate, then it will get very repetitive very quickly.

I'd recommend you to read up, and see what Christians think about those passages rather than assuming what we think.

As for respect, have as little respect for me as you like. It would be courteous to do so, but I will continue dealing with your posts in a respectful manner as you deserve to be regarded.

Cannibal Ox

@Jakkass,

On HIV/AIDS and other bits:
I agree with you about contraception being only part of the solution and the viability of monogamy as part of such a solution. You're also absolutely right when you say the view of contraceptives I'm getting at is held by the Roman Catholic Church and that we need to distinguish between them and other christian churches.

It's not really the discussion I want to have though. I was trying to use HIV/AIDS and contraception as an example of how the Catholic Church responds to an ethical demand brought about by, or framed with, our scientific knowledge through its own system of thought that frames its response.

What I'm trying to get at is that, in my opinion, this response, at least the intellectual response (don't me wrong, there are thousands of great christian and catholic organisations out there that do wonderful work "on the ground" all over the world) is itself framed within a two thousand year old belief system that I'd suggest is not as responsive, or as flexible, or as adaptive as philosophy is to contribute to scientific questions.

So I'm not trying to negate the contribution of christianity, or other religions, to philosophy, but I am trying to point out that responses framed by christianity are exactly that, framed by a particular religious system of belief that is two thousand years old, created, or revealed, in a very different time, and a very different social and cultural context.

I'm not trying to claim that christianity has never changed, but I do think that even when it has changed, it has still done so within the framework of a particular system, and this system is not responsive enough to deal with scientific changes in, to me, a satisfactory way.

Let me put it this way, you couldn't claim that God did not create the universe under a christian system, but you could claim that God did not create the universe under a philosophical system. Christianity, as a system of thought and of belief, puts up blockages of what is and isn't allowed. It restricts the possibilities rather then opens up the possibilities.

I think this is falling into a pragmatic-lite argument What I'm trying to say is that I think that a twining, as it were, between philosophy and science would be more satisfactory and more practical then a twining between religion and science because philosophy is more adaptive and more, I suppose, "loose" then religion is.

On school:
My problem with teaching religion in school in a critical way is that, again, practically, I don't think parents would be delighted, particularly if they are believers, to have their child's religion critically taught to them in a school. In other words, I think it'd take a very brave politician to stand up and say "we're going to teach religion critically in schools".

I do like your idea of separate faith schools and I think it is certainly a possible solution, and I'd have no problem, in fact I'd encourage, every subject to be critically taught. Especially science and religion.

philologos

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

On HIV/AIDS and other bits:
I agree with you about contraception being only part of the solution and the viability of monogamy as part of such a solution. You're also absolutely right when you say the view of contraceptives I'm getting at is held by the Roman Catholic Church and that we need to distinguish between them and other christian churches.

The reference commonly used by proponents of the RCC stance on contraceptives is Genesis 38. I'm not sure that it is referring to contraceptives.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

What I'm trying to get at is that, in my opinion, this response, at least the intellectual response (don't me wrong, there are thousands of great christian and catholic organisations out there that do wonderful work "on the ground" all over the world) is itself framed within a two thousand year old belief system that I'd suggest is not as responsive, or as flexible, or as adaptive as philosophy is to contribute to scientific questions.

Irrespective, of whether it is 2,000 years old, I find the large bulk of values that exist in Christianity are very much relevant to my 21st century life, and other 21st century lives. I guess, it's because of the anecdotal evidence I have seen to the contrary, even in how the Scriptures speak to my life, that I find that it just isn't the case that it can't respond to 21st century problems effectively.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

So I'm not trying to negate the contribution of christianity, or other religions, to philosophy, but I am trying to point out that responses framed by christianity are exactly that, framed by a particular religious system of belief that is two thousand years old, created, or revealed, in a very different time, and a very different social and cultural context.

I'm merely saying that a huge bulk, even of modern philosophy is done by people who are some form of Christian. Admittedly, most are Roman Catholic, as philosophy never really took off amongst Protestants.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I'm not trying to claim that christianity has never changed, but I do think that even when it has changed, it has still done so within the framework of a particular system, and this system is not responsive enough to deal with scientific changes in, to me, a satisfactory way.

I don't know why change is so good. To be quite honest with you, if I could even catch a glimpse of New Testament values as they were exhibited in the first century (yet translating them into the 21st) , I would consider that a great thing.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Let me put it this way, you couldn't claim that God did not create the universe under a christian system, but you could claim that God did not create the universe under a philosophical system. Christianity, as a system of thought and of belief, puts up blockages of what is and isn't allowed. It restricts the possibilities rather then opens up the possibilities.

Why would I want to? I find it unreasonable, that this universe did not have a Creator.

As far as I am concerned, people have the choice to be a Christian or not. I freely decided that I believed in Jesus Christ. Other people have the same opportunity.

I would consider my faith to be more liberating than not, in the long scale of things. I believe hinging ones hopes and dreams onto what is contained within this finite world, if anything is the most restrictive of all philosophies and belief systems.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I think this is falling into a pragmatic-lite argument What I'm trying to say is that I think that a twining, as it were, between philosophy and science would be more satisfactory and more practical then a twining between religion and science because philosophy is more adaptive and more, I suppose, "loose" then religion is.

It's more that you are saying that Christianity can't be relevant in 21st century lives, but I find it so difficult to believe that given the numerous examples I've come to see first hand of this. Particularly in respect to the social gospel, and our responsibilities to each other as human beings. A huge bulk of that is done by Christian motivation.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

My problem with teaching religion in school in a critical way is that, again, practically, I don't think parents would be delighted, particularly if they are believers, to have their child's religion critically taught to them in a school. In other words, I think it'd take a very brave politician to stand up and say "we're going to teach religion critically in schools".

I would expect them to say, we are going to take atheism and agnosticism critically in our schools. If we are going to criticise religion, we are going to have to criticise other approaches to belief including secular humanism, atheism and agnosticism, and so on.

The other approach, would be just to teach them neutrally instead of trying to emphasise criticising everything. The approach would be teach about each, and allow the criticism to take place by the individual.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I do like your idea of separate faith schools and I think it is certainly a possible solution, and I'd have no problem, in fact I'd encourage, every subject to be critically taught. Especially science and religion.

It's the same idea the State have at the minute.

Cannibal Ox

Jakkass wrote:

The reference commonly used by proponents of the RCC stance on contraceptives is Genesis 38. I'm not sure that it is referring to contraceptives

When I was writing my last two posts, I was thinking of Augustine and Casti Connubii, and I've now found out that Augustine used Genesis 38, and it was also used in Casti Connubii. I never knew that!

I'm not particularly won over by it, what with the killing, and, with my admittedly limited theological knowledge, it doesn't seem entirely clear to me whether Onan was killed because he slept with his dead brothers wife outside of marriage, or because he used a "natural" contraceptive, or all three.

Irrespective, of whether it is 2,000 years old, I find the large bulk of values that exist in Christianity are very much relevant to my 21st century life, and other 21st century lives. I guess, it's because of the anecdotal evidence I have seen to the contrary, even in how the Scriptures speak to my life, that I find that it just isn't the case that it can't respond to 21st century problems effectively.

The reason I mentioned Plato in my first post is because, in many ways, there are many values that I find in Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Mill, and others that I find relevant to my life and the world around me. There are also values in the New Testament that I think are valuable to the world.

I suppose my point of departure is that, intellectually, I don't hold those values as being absolute, or as being a consistent position with which I should orientate my values, in the way that I would have to if I was christian.

That doesn't mean that, practically speaking, I don't hold on to a set of values as being a good guide and of doing good actions, but my problem with holding onto a belief system and using it to orientate your ethical queries is that you are orientating yourself in particular ways and finding your answers according to that orientation.

I'm merely saying that a huge bulk, even of modern philosophy is done by people who are some form of Christian. Admittedly, most are Roman Catholic, as philosophy never really took off amongst Protestants.

I'm not trying to claim that Christianity hasn't had an impact on philosophers lives, but when I think of philosophers like Spinoza, or scientists, like Darwin, or even artists like Caravaggio, it isn't hard for me to argue that people whose views critique or contradict christian teaching have rarely been embraced with open arms.

I don't know why change is so good. To be quite honest with you, if I could even catch a glimpse of New Testament values as they were exhibited in the first century (yet translating them into the 21st) , I would consider that a great thing.

I think change is good, because our world is always changing, and science and philosophy, both being a form of critical inquiry into our world, are always changing.

In general, absolutes make me nervous, particularly absolutes that are defended by the erection of monolithic institutions that try to stand outside of time, as it were, and, at the same time, try to dictate a way of life for all time and for all people.

I think that isn't exactly what you are advocating, it seems much more personal and local for you, but it is hard for me to separate christianity from an absolutist system that seeks to stand away from society and at the same time mold society.

Why would I want to? I find it unreasonable, that this universe did not have a Creator.

I think I'm repeating myself, but I think by doing that you create blockages to thought, when I think we should be seeking to free up thought. I don't think you can escape your own subjective beliefs when you inquire into any matter, but I do think it is incumbent upon us to try to open up ways of thinking, rather then close them off.

As far as I am concerned, people have the choice to be a Christian or not. I freely decided that I believed in Jesus Christ. Other people have the same opportunity.

I completely agree! No issue with it what so ever.

I would consider my faith to be more liberating than not, in the long scale of things. I believe hinging ones hopes and dreams onto what is contained within this finite world, if anything is the most restrictive of all philosophies and belief systems.

I think this is interesting in the sense that what I think you're saying hits on the idea that either we have a transcendental or an immanent form of knowledge, do we find meaning in the world around us, or do we find meaning above and beyond the empirical world.

I'm not really sure either way. I think it is useful to have beliefs above and beyond the empirical world, but I also think if they are absolute beliefs, it can create problems.

It's more that you are saying that Christianity can't be relevant in 21st century lives, but I find it so difficult to believe that given the numerous examples I've come to see first hand of this. Particularly in respect to the social gospel, and our responsibilities to each other as human beings. A huge bulk of that is done by Christian motivation.

I would say that christianity can be relevant to individual lives, but I don't think, in a pragmatic sense, that it should be prefered over philosophy when we talk about which is more appropriate to twin with science.

On the other hand, I would also say it seems to be counter-productive to oppose religious thought to science and to portray them as diametrically opposed.

I think they both have a place in the world, personally and socially, but I would be nervous about twinning them.

I would expect them to say, we are going to take atheism and agnosticism critically in our schools. If we are going to criticise religion, we are going to have to criticise other approaches to belief including secular humanism, atheism and agnosticism, and so on.

I'm not so confident it would be allowed as you! I would hope it would happen in that way, but I don't think it'll happen at the moment.

Long post

philologos

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

When I was writing my last two posts, I was thinking of Augustine and Casti Connubii, and I've now found out that Augustine used Genesis 38, and it was also used in Casti Connubii. I never knew that!

I'm not particularly won over by it, what with the killing, and, with my admittedly limited theological knowledge, it doesn't seem entirely clear to me whether Onan was killed because he slept with his dead brothers wife outside of marriage, or because he used a "natural" contraceptive, or all three.

Here's my take on it:

It is referring to the Jewish law concerning that if a deceased man has a wife who is childless that one of the brothers in that family would give a child to the deceased (Deuteronomy 25). Onan intentionally went about it so that that purpose would never actually be fulfilled. That's the point as far as I think it, rather than using contraceptives.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

The reason I mentioned Plato in my first post is because, in many ways, there are many values that I find in Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Mill, and others that I find relevant to my life and the world around me. There are also values in the New Testament that I think are valuable to the world.

Well, it is the philosophy forum, you should be able to cite whichever philosophers you wish to cite. I personally find the person of Socrates to be quite principled, and that he had a lot in common with the Jewish thinkers on the other side of the sea.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I suppose my point of departure is that, intellectually, I don't hold those values as being absolute, or as being a consistent position with which I should orientate my values, in the way that I would have to if I was christian.

That's the difference I guess. If we are to believe in a God, who knows best for humanity, then of course these values will be absolute.

I don't consider that restrictive, in the sense that you have a choice to subscribe to Christianity or not.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

That doesn't mean that, practically speaking, I don't hold on to a set of values as being a good guide and of doing good actions, but my problem with holding onto a belief system and using it to orientate your ethical queries is that you are orientating yourself in particular ways and finding your answers according to that orientation.

I'd agree, that's exactly what I am doing. That's the point of the exercise. In my daily life, I try to live it, as I was created to live it and to find my purpose in this world. I realise, that this world isn't mine, it's God's and that He wants me to live according to His intention.

Ultimately when it comes down to it, the ethical standards will rest with Him, if I am to believe in a Final Judgement.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I think change is good, because our world is always changing, and science and philosophy, both being a form of critical inquiry into our world, are always changing.

I'm not sure. I don't think we should come along and black line sections of the Bible. I do support reading the Bible and finding solutions for our age in there, and I believe that they can be found, even in a 2,000 year old book (and older in some parts).

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

In general, absolutes make me nervous, particularly absolutes that are defended by the erection of monolithic institutions that try to stand outside of time, as it were, and, at the same time, try to dictate a way of life for all time and for all people.

Subjectivity, in relation to morality makes me nervous. It's plain dangerous putting morality in the hands of the beholder. Humans have an inherent ability of being able to decide on action based on what is convenient for them, or what is best for them, rather than what is right by others. Right and wrong become meaningless if we construct them, as we can have no certainty that they will ever resonate between people. That's why universality is really needed in terms of ethics. I'm not the only one to have said this, and indeed the Greeks such as Plato in his dialogues put across the need for a universal ethics.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I think that isn't exactly what you are advocating, it seems much more personal and local for you, but it is hard for me to separate christianity from an absolutist system that seeks to stand away from society and at the same time mold society.

That is what I am advocating. I believe that the Gospel is true, and that it is for everyone.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I think I'm repeating myself, but I think by doing that you create blockages to thought, when I think we should be seeking to free up thought. I don't think you can escape your own subjective beliefs when you inquire into any matter, but I do think it is incumbent upon us to try to open up ways of thinking, rather then close them off.

Again, I thoroughly disagree, I arrived at my position by free thought, and if I desire, I can lose my position by free thought. Mind you, even atheism has assumptions that cannot be gone down, one cannot ever consider that God really exists, and has a presence in the world if one is to be an atheist. That element of thought could be said to be cordoned off, but actually, these people have decided to be atheists, and they know by free thought they can become a Christian or any other number of faiths.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I think this is interesting in the sense that what I think you're saying hits on the idea that either we have a transcendental or an immanent form of knowledge, do we find meaning in the world around us, or do we find meaning above and beyond the empirical world.

Well, I personally have found even in respect to my own personal life, and indeed before I started to take faith as seriously as I do now, that hinging hopes onto things in this world, was fruitless.

If you are rich, you will get rich, but what next?
If you are looking for fame, you will get fame, but what next?
If you are looking for intimacy, you will get intimacy, but what next?

All these actions are not end goals, they are a means to something else.

An interesting point I heard recently was, that if we put our hope beyond this world, we can realise that for everything we are not He is. We have a role and a purpose and there is perhaps a reason why we cannot have everything, and perhaps there is a life that we are called to live using our own gifts and abilities.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I'm not really sure either way. I think it is useful to have beliefs above and beyond the empirical world, but I also think if they are absolute beliefs, it can create problems.

You're clearly the opposite to me. I believe subjectivity is outright dangerous. An example of where subjectivity gets dangerous is looking at dictatorship. When you decide that right and wrong is for you to decide, it usually ends up with people doing terrible things to one another. When you decide that right and wrong are beyond yourself, that's when you realise that you have a duty to live correctly by your neighbour, and that it is beyond you to decide.

Even looking at the US Declaration of Independence on the second line:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is because these rights are given by our Creator, that we truly cannot deny them to others without facing some form of consequence ourselves. It is because they are truly beyond us, that they are universal, and that they should be heeded.

If it is up to us, rights can be given and taken away freely by human beings. If they are up to God, they are not ours to give or take away, they simply are.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I would say that christianity can be relevant to individual lives, but I don't think, in a pragmatic sense, that it should be prefered over philosophy when we talk about which is more appropriate to twin with science.

I can't really say much other than that I outright disagree :pac:

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

On the other hand, I would also say it seems to be counter-productive to oppose religious thought to science and to portray them as diametrically opposed.

I agree, it actually causes people to become more opposed to you in most cases. I mentioned earlier about the possible effect that atheist polemicists will possibly have on young earth Creationists.

recedite

Jakkass wrote: »

An interesting point I heard recently was, that if we put our hope beyond this world, we can realise that for everything we are not He is. We have a role and a purpose and there is perhaps a reason why we cannot have everything, and perhaps there is a life that we are called to live using our own gifts and abilities.

Nice thought, but I prefer it when kids are taught to face up to the reality of this life.

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't attribute teaching ones child about ones faith and values to be in any way ethically wrong. Indeed, all parents whether religious or not do this in the home.

Yes, and thats where your indoctrination should stay.

Jakkass wrote: »

Six 24 hour days? Alas, no. Genesis isn't intended to be a science book, it is intended to be an account of why the universe is as it is. Not how it came to be.

This is my current position on it, given that the sun and the moon were created on the 4th day of Creation. This makes the length of those days, somewhat more up for discussion, than many would make it out to be. Most likely, this was a direct challenge to worship of the sun and the moon, to indicate that there was a God who made all of these things, including the things you now worship.

I think that YEC (Young Earth Creationism) should be taught in religion class, as it is hugely important to what people are advocating in the world, particularly in the USA, and in Turkey, and even in other Western nations to a lesser extent.

There are also a number of other Christian views to Creation (older earth, theistic evolution and so on), that need to be discussed, again in the religion class.

Edit: As for YEC, much of its growth can also be attributed to atheist detractors suggesting that Christianity or Islam in the case of Turkey and science can never be compatible. The more hard line ones opposition gets, more likely you will also become more hard line yourself.

These are indeed the only two possible responses that religion can come up with when evidence is presented that undermines its tenets. The first, is to bend like a bamboo in a storm, as in "a day in this context actually means x billion years" which is a cop out. The second, as in YEC, is to remain resolute to the ideas and to be smashed on the rock of reality.

Jakkass wrote: »

The Bible was written by man, but it was revealed by God according to Christians. It wasn't "created", or "made up" by individuals according to that view, but rather God revealed Himself to humanity, and then it was transcribed.

"revealed" !! Does that mean he passed a Dictaphone to the scribes? Why wouldn't he just make a few thousand copies appear. Then the followers could have got on with proselytising instead of wasting time on the transcripts.

Jakkass wrote: »

Tell me this, do I come across as vile from my belief in Christianity, or do I come across as civil?

You are hoping to win over converts by your exemplary manner, but a deluded gentleman is still deluded.


Basically, as long as the taxpayer is paying the teachers salaries, they should only teach that which is accepted as fact by society.
Any other dogma can be taught at home, or else in a 100% privately funded institution.

Shield

Warning issued. No public comment on mod actions please.

recedite wrote: »

You are hoping to win over converts by your exemplary manner, but a deluded gentleman is still deluded.

philologos

It might help me a long a bit if I outline what you've said that are assertions, rather than reasoned arguments.

recedite wrote: »

Nice thought, but I prefer it when kids are taught to face up to the reality of this life.
Yes, and thats where your indoctrination should stay.

Assertions: Christianity doesn't pertain to reality.
Children are indoctrinated into Christianity.

Problems: What are you defining as reality?
How do you account for many people who come to faith well after the age of reason?
How do you account for many people who were raised Christian but then become something else, whether atheist, agnostic, or other believer?
Surely taking into account the circumstances described in the last question, one could reasonably assume that more often than not being taught something at childhood doesn't guarantee it will be the case well into adulthood?

Both assertions unsubstantiated.

recedite wrote: »

These are indeed the only two possible responses that religion can come up with when evidence is presented that undermines its tenets. The first, is to bend like a bamboo in a storm, as in "a day in this context actually means x billion years" which is a cop out. The second, as in YEC, is to remain resolute to the ideas and to be smashed on the rock of reality.

Assertions: Anyone who holds a view that the earth is in fact old, and that God was involved in the scientific processes that brought us to this point in time are in effect undermining their position.
In turn, those who are Young Earth Creationists are actually affirming the truth described in Genesis chapter 1.

Problems: There are numerous ways of understanding Creation. They are actually listed in the Wikipedia article on Creationism.
It assumes that Christians who believe in a old earth are actually conforming to what secularists affirm. This is not true either. Rather, it is about seeing it from a perspective where we have God's creation that we can actively study and learn about through science, and an understanding of the why behind Creation.

Another problem is that if one studies the Genesis 1 account, on the fourth day of Creation, the sun and the moon were created. This most likely was to suggest that what people commonly worshipped, was actually just a Creation of God in itself, and it is to Him that we should give honour and praise. This allows us to question whether or not a day was a 24 hour day, or a period of longer length. The sun is crucial in establishing time, the earth's rotation around the sun determines the number of days in a year. It determines the day and the night.

recedite wrote: »

"revealed" !! Does that mean he passed a Dictaphone to the scribes? Why wouldn't he just make a few thousand copies appear. Then the followers could have got on with proselytising instead of wasting time on the transcripts.

In most Christian understandings, God chose to do it this way, because He wants us to be actively involved in His plan. I.E - Contrary to the point of view of atheists and agnostics, we have a universal purpose which God has given us. God has a plan for our lives if we are willing to accept it.

This is the biggest difference between the Christian world, and the world that atheism and agnosticism generates.

recedite wrote: »

You are hoping to win over converts by your exemplary manner, but a deluded gentleman is still deluded.

Assertions: I am attempting to win over converts by a message board.
In turn I am also deluded.

Problems:
With I being deluded - too many.

Winning over converts on a message board - First of all, I don't believe I win over anyone. If God wishes to use me to convince people that Christianity is the truth, it will be by Him that people are convinced.

Second of all, a message forum isn't where this is done. There is only so far that argument can convince. I believe the relational aspect of living out a Christian life is also important in convincing others that the Christian life is one that is worthy to live.

recedite wrote: »

Basically, as long as the taxpayer is paying the teachers salaries, they should only teach that which is accepted as fact by society.
Any other dogma can be taught at home, or else in a 100% privately funded institution.

Assertions: Tax payers don't want to pay for this.

Problems: People of faith are in a majority, not a minority in Ireland still. Therefore their taxes should be spent effectively, as well as yours. Our constitution secures freedom to the parent to educate their child in both moral and religious matters. The common use of this in practice is in faith based schooling. As such the State if it is to remain faithful to the Constitution is to provide means for people of faith to learn about that faith and the morality that it brings, and for atheists and agnostics to attend secular schools along with others who are interested in doing so.

I don't think atheists and agnostics should decide what the State does with the taxes of religious believers, and I believe it would be an unwarranted intrusion of atheism and agnosticism into State matters if it were to do so.

In the UK they have faith based and secular schools both funded by the Government and there is no reason why we can't do so either.

Jarndyce

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think atheists and agnostics should decide what the State does with the taxes of religious believers, and I believe it would be an unwarranted intrusion of atheism and agnosticism into State matters if it were to do so.

It's called 'rationalism'. To spend taxpayers' money on the encouragement of pernicious delusions is not the direction in which civilized Western society should be going.

Apparently you want to keep the line between Church and State well and truly blurred. That's retrograde and downright abominable.

P.S

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity doesn't pertain to reality.

Smartest thing I've heard you say so far. You are absolutely right

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

It's called 'rationalism'. To spend taxpayers' money on the encouragement of pernicious delusions is not the direction in which civilized Western society should be going.

It's based on a subjective understanding of rationalism, that precludes the idea that one can both believe in God, and be rational. That's what's absurd about it. Thankfully, I don't have such a limited view of what being rational involves, and thankfully this isn't actually the philosophical precedent given that many philosophers who believed in God could also very easily be said to be rational. From Aristotle, to Thomas Aquinas and beyond into our age.

You make the same assertion that faith is any more a delusion than your irreligion. This is what I am sceptical of, and indeed it is a grandiose leap.

Jarndyce wrote: »

Apparently you want to keep the line between Church and State well and truly blurred. That's retrograde and downright abominable.

Very Biblical language! - Carrying on though, faith schools exist in just about every secular nation. I cited the UK as an example, as it is often regarded to be one of the most secular nations in Europe.

I personally support liberty of conscience, liberty of parents to decide how to educate their children within reason, and liberty of belief. I don't believe that faith should be driven out of peoples lives. I support neutrality and fairness of the State in legislating. This means not having atheist hobbyhorses as well as not having hobbyhorses for any position, but rather to secure civil liberties.

That's all it involves. The word secular is abused to suggest that people have the right to divorce faith from peoples lives. This is truly abominable in my view.

I resent any attempt to hinder parents rights in respect to their children.

Jarndyce wrote: »

Smartest thing I've heard you say so far. You are absolutely right

Outlining an assertion. You're welcome to repeat those assertions if you will, but don't expect me to regard them as valid arguments.

Jarndyce

You dare say that it is I who is making a grandiose leap? Might I remind you that there is no evidence whatsoever for your beliefs and the beliefs held in respect of other religions. Notwithstanding this, you believe that such baseless dogma should dictate, to a significant extent, government expenditure. I recommend that you read, for example, about Jonah and the Whale once again and then come back and tell me that it is I who is making the grandiose leap.

Evidence is key - the key to science and to advancement of civilisation and understanding in general. Religious nonsense cannot offer one iota of evidence.

You say in a most condescending and holier than thou manner that you 'don't have such a limited view of what being rational involves'? My friend, I think you lost sight of rationality a long time ago. You now live in the realm of irrationality, bending truths, facts, or rather the lack thereof, to accord with the 'the good book' and all the intellectually offensive babble therein.

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

You dare say that it is I who is making a grandiose leap?

I think you are in assuming that rationalism automatically affirms your point of view yes.

Jarndyce wrote: »

Might I remind you that there is no evidence whatsoever for your beliefs and the beliefs held in respect of other religions.

I don't believe this is the case. Although this depends on how one is defining evidence. Personally, I do believe good arguments can be made from the point of view, of archaeology, history, philosophy, cosmology amongst other things that do indicate for the Bible being accurate in many respects including that of God's role in Creation, God as a necessary source of universal morality, archaeology backing up the sites and the events of many Biblical passages, and the same being true for history.

I would advise you to look out a few books on Christian apologetics, or in Christian philosophy of religion rather than assuming that one cannot find indicatory evidence for why Christianity is true rather than not. People can and do argue this on a regular basis.

Jarndyce wrote: »

Notwithstanding this, you believe that such baseless dogma should dictate, to a significant extent, government expenditure. I recommend that you read, for example, about Jonah and the Whale once again and then come back and tell me that it is I who is making the grandiose leap.

I don't agree that I do make a grandiose leap. I don't believe without question, and I used to be an agnostic a few years ago, so I really don't appreciate such claims considering that you know very little about me or about the thought process that brought me to Christianity.

Jarndyce wrote: »

Evidence is key - the key to science and to advancement of civilisation and understanding in general. Religious nonsense cannot offer one iota of evidence.

I agree, evidence is key.

Jarndyce wrote: »

You say in a most condescending and holier than thou manner that you 'don't have such a limited view of what being rational involves'? My friend, I think you lost sight of rationality a long time ago. You now live in the realm of irrationality, bending truths, facts, or rather the lack thereof, to accord with the 'the good book' and all the intellectually offensive babble therein.

There's nothing sanctimonious about it. If you believe that one cannot be a Christian and live in a rational manner, then your view is extremely limited.

Your continued assertion that I am irrational, without any form of basis, is just as limited and narrow. One could equally soapbox that since you don't accept the God of Creation, that you are infact delusional and irrational for not being able to see what is so clearly evident. Yet I don't engage in such rhetoric, because that is all it is meaningless rhetoric that actually detracts from the discussion we are actually having. It's entirely meaningless to keep ranting that I am irrational, and that I amn't believing in reality as this depends on your assumptions of what is reasonable, and what is reality.

I personally can understand why people don't believe in God, but ultimately I find such a position unreasonable. I likewise, find God to be an intrinsic part of reality, and a rejection of God is the same thing as denying reality itself. However, I don't rant back and forth based at that, I'm looking to get at something much deeper than this tiresome accusation of being irrational or not. It's all a big huge assertion.

Let's aim for a higher standard.

Jarndyce

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe this is the case. Although this depends on how one is defining evidence. Personally, I do believe good arguments can be made from the point of view, of archaeology, history, philosophy, cosmology amongst other things that do indicate for the Bible being accurate in many respects including that of God's role in Creation, God as a necessary source of universal morality, archaeology backing up the sites and the events of many Biblical passages, and the same being true for history.

Thankfully, the low bar that you set for 'evidence' is not one that is shared by the scientific community.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't agree that I do make a grandiose leap.

Jakkass wrote: »

I agree, evidence is key.

Perhaps you could reconcile these statements?

Jakkass wrote: »

There's nothing sanctimonious about it. If you believe that one cannot be a Christian and live in a rational manner, then your view is extremely limited.

I said no such thing. The Christian belief, like any man-made religion, is inherently irrational. It does not follow, of course, that one who subscribes to such dogma is not capable of being rational in all other aspects of his/her life.

Jakkass wrote: »

Your continued assertion that I am irrational, without any form of basis, is just as limited and narrow. One could equally soapbox that since you don't accept the God of Creation, that you are infact delusional and irrational for not being able to see what is so clearly evident.

That is a very weak analogy to attempt to draw. One could not equally argue such a thing, though some attempt it, for the fact that science and evidence supports my starting point. If a person told me that the "God of Creation" is "so clearly evident" without being able to adduce any evidence in support of such an assertion, it would stir in me both laughter and concern. Concern, should he ever be appointed to a position (e.g. school teacher) where he might directly or subtly attempt to impose such nonsense on my children.

If somebody could consider something to be clearly evident, without any evidence, is that not a cause for concern?

Jakkass wrote: »

Let's aim for a higher standard.

Indeed. Let that standard be evidence. Only with evidence might it be acceptable to sanction government spending on this issue. Without it, confine such nonsense to chapels/mosques/synagogues where such people can chant to their heart's content.

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

Thankfully, the low bar that you set for 'evidence' is not one that is shared by the scientific community.

There are different forms of evidence. What you are referring to isn't indicatory evidence, which is the best that either atheists or theists can do in respect to God. That is observing things as they are, and determining on the basis of such an observation that things are more likely to be one way than another.

I.E - What indicates that God exists rather than not?
Or in the opposite case, what indicates that God doesn't exist?

Jarndyce wrote: »

Perhaps you could reconcile these statements?

There's not much that needs reconciling, since both were referring to different parts of your post. I believe that your assumption that I am deluded, and that I am irrational, solely on the basis that you don't agree with my belief in God is a grandiose leap.

Jarndyce wrote: »

I said no such thing. The Christian belief, like any man-made religion, is inherently irrational. It does not follow, of course, that one who subscribes to such dogma is not capable of being rational in all other aspects of his/her life.

If one believes that Christianity is meant to inspire all aspects of their daily living, then of course how that person will act and deal with daily living will also in your opinion be irrational.

Jarndyce wrote: »

That is a very weak analogy to attempt to draw. One could not equally argue such a thing, though some attempt it, for the fact that science and evidence supports my starting point. If a person told me that the "God of Creation" is "so clearly evident" without being able to adduce any evidence in support of such an assertion, it would stir in me both laughter and concern. Concern, should he ever be appointed to a position (e.g. school teacher) where he might directly or subtly attempt to impose such nonsense on my children.

It's pretty much exactly what you are doing except for the atheist perspective. Using terms, like irrational, and deluded to say something that is really quite simplex:

I don't believe in God and you're wrong.

That's great, but I don't see how it is conducive to discussion to repeat such phrases. I mean, do we want a dialogue, or should we both behave as ideologues repeating that the other is deluded ad-infinitum, despite the fact that they will never share that assumption.

As far as I'm concerned there isn't really much cognitive content in such a discussion, and indeed it would be fruitless to continue.

Jarndyce wrote: »

If somebody could consider something to be clearly evident, without any evidence, is that not a cause for concern?

You're making the same old assumption, again!

Jarndyce wrote: »

Indeed. Let that standard be evidence. Only with evidence might it be acceptable to sanction government spending on this issue. Without it, confine such nonsense to chapels/mosques/synagogues where such people can chant to their heart's content.

I've defined evidence simply and clearly for you. Unfortunately the evidence doesn't much support your position (Edit: As you are defining it). This would require the Government to be agnostic rather than atheist on the issue, which ultimately in line with the constitution supports the liberty of a parent to provide for moral and religious education. As commonly interpreted through faith schools.

As I've said already, numerous countries do this and it seems to operate just fine.

As for confining views to a mosque, or a synagogue or anywhere else. That is anathema to freedom. People have the right to express their beliefs in a free society. The view you are advocating, advocates repression of thought. Such views are thoroughly abominable to me if I wish to continue living as a free citizen.

Jarndyce

Jakkass wrote: »

There are different forms of evidence. What you are referring to isn't indicatory evidence, which is the best that either atheists or theists can do in respect to God. That is observing things as they are, and determining on the basis of such an observation that things are more likely to be one way than another.

You continue to side-step the fact that you unable to point to any evidence of probative value to support your belief in the existence of God.

Jakkass wrote: »

There's not much that needs reconciling, since both were referring to different parts of your post. I believe that your assumption that I am deluded, and that I am irrational, solely on the basis that you don't agree with my belief in God is a grandiose leap.

My implication, which I'd hoped you'd follow, was that you believe evidence is key yet you can point to none in support of your argument while at the same time claiming that you your belief is not a grandiose leap? Does not not seem contradictory to you?

Jakkass wrote: »

If one believes that Christianity is meant to inspire all aspects of their daily living, then of course how that person will act and deal with daily living will also in your opinion be irrational.

That simply does not follow. For example:
1) You are a bus driver. You are as devout as the Pope. I would have no problem boarding your bus. I know you hold a valid licence to drive such a vehicle. I am aware that your belief is utterly irrational but it is of no moment for the purpose of my journey. All that matters is that you can competently drive the bus from its starting point to destination, presuming of course that such a driver is compos mentis.

2) You install smoke alarms in your home because you don't want to burn to death.

3) You stop at red lights.

I didn't expect to have to draw such simplistic examples to illustrate my point that would will act rationally irrespective of your fervent belief. Do you still dispute this?

Jakkass wrote: »

I've defined evidence simply and clearly for you. Unfortunately the evidence doesn't much support your position either.

I disagree. Discoveries like the Theory of Evolution quite substantially support my position. Science does not claim to have all the answers. It is most humble. Your position, on the other hand, says that there are no questions to be asked here. There is no need to scientifically question the basis for this dogma. You are essentially left holding a book, listening to silly men in silly costumes who tell you what to do.

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

You continue to side-step the fact that you unable to point to any evidence of probative value to support your belief in the existence of God.

I've dealt with this already. I've explained exactly what I would consider to be indicatory evidence, and I've even referred you to look up more for yourself. Nothing about side-stepping, I can even give you a list of books that you could look to to read up on. I would suspect, that this isn't more a case of evidence, but rather a case of attitude, or inclination.

Jarndyce wrote: »

My implication, which I'd hoped you'd follow, was that you believe evidence is key yet you can point to none in support of your argument while at the same time claiming that you your belief is not a grandiose leap? Does not not seem contradictory to you?

I've already listed several areas. I've argued what I would consider evidence on Boards, on other fora mostly, numerous times in the past.

Jarndyce wrote: »

I didn't expect to have to draw such simplistic examples to illustrate my point that would will act rationally irrespective of your fervent belief. Do you still dispute this?

If I am being entirely honest with you. This is getting frustrating by this point, very much so (Frustrating, because you are missing my point completely)

I have said, quite clearly, that Christianity does motivate people in all areas of their lives. In how they will work, in how they will regard their families, in how they will learn and so on and so forth. That was my point. My point is that there is nothing whatsoever that would indicate that Christianity itself is irrational apart from your patent assumption that it is.

Jarndyce wrote: »

I disagree. Discoveries like the Theory of Evolution quite substantially support my position. Science does not claim to have all the answers. It is most humble. Your position, on the other hand, says that there are no questions to be asked here. There is no need to scientifically question the basis for this dogma. You are essentially left holding a book, listening to silly men in silly costumes who tell you what to do.

The theory of evolution doesn't support your position any more than mine. It is neutral to all matter of atheism or theism. It is a description of how things are.

You're strawmanning my position again, despite having me explain it to you in full. My position at present would welcome questioning, and independent research. Independent research and questioning is how I arrived at my current position, through asking my friends questions, and through reading the Scriptures. At present, if I find something that is said in church to be suspect, I would think about it, and then read the Scriptures to see if there is any basis in it.

I would thoroughly warn anyone not to accept everything that someone says, but to think about it and to see if it makes sense.

Your attempt is to be honest with you again, dishonest. Are we going to have a proper discussion or are you going to tell me what I believe? If it is the latter, what's the point in my posting?

Jarndyce

Jakkass wrote: »

I've dealt with this already.

Unsatisfactorily.

Jakkass wrote: »

My point is that there is nothing whatsoever that would indicate that Christianity itself is irrational apart from your patent assumption that it is.

Of ludicrous statements, that one takes the biscuit :eek: Resurrection??? Walking on water?? Burning bushes that speak??? But I guess that's just my assumption. Such claims are perfectly rational, aren't they?? Please.

EDIT: Not to mention that a homosexual should be put to death for reason only that he is a homosexual. Still rational?

I can assure you that I have joined you in frustration.

Jakkass wrote: »

The theory of evolution doesn't support your position any more than mine. It is neutral to all matter of atheism or theism. It is a description of how things are.

Yes how things are and how things came to be. That does not correspond to your position. If I recall correctly, you told me that you believe the book of Genesis. God created man etc etc. Science has proved that evolution created man, so please don't insult it by attempting to embrace it only when your own starting point becomes so patently indefensible.

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

Of ludicrous statements, that one takes the biscuit :eek: Resurrection??? Walking on water?? Burning bushes that speak??? But I guess that's just my assumption. Such claims are perfectly rational, aren't they?? Please.

This is all down to assumptions that you are making. If there is no God, then of course these are all absurd. If there is a God, then yes, all of these events become explicable. It is because I am of the belief that there is a God, that in turn, that all of these events can happen precisely because God created the scientific laws of the universe and is capable of manipulating them.

Let it take the biscuit.

Jarndyce wrote: »

EDIT: Not to mention that a homosexual should be put to death for reason only that he is a homosexual. Still rational?

I have suggested, from a Christian POV that humanity in general is deserving of death. I quoted a passage from Romans earlier to show this in the New Testament. Thankfully due to grace we can be forgiven and we can be reunited to God to live a new life for Him. This is the Christian take on the subject of sin (in general). If one wishes to discuss the Orthodox Jewish point of view concerning it, that is their prerogative.

Jarndyce wrote: »

I can assure you that I have joined you in frustration.

Just being honest with you, it's not intended to be taken personally.

Jarndyce wrote: »

Yes how things are and how things came to be. That does not correspond to your position. If I recall correctly, you told me that you believe the book of Genesis. God created man etc etc. Science has proved that evolution created man, so please don't insult it by attempting to embrace it only when your own starting point becomes so patently indefensible.

Genesis and evolution are not mutually exclusive. It is also possible that God created the process of biological evolution.

Can I suggest toning down the rhetoric? It makes it incredibly difficult to discuss when you are using hyperbole, and it is clear that your emotions are running a bit high.

I might need to take a break from the thread temporarily myself! I only want to do this discussion with respect, both on my side and on yours.

Jarndyce

Jakkass wrote: »

This is all down to assumptions that you are making. If there is no God, then of course these are all absurd. If there is a God, then yes, all of these events become explicable. It is because I am of the belief that there is a God, that in turn, that all of these events can happen precisely because God created the scientific laws of the universe and is capable of manipulating them.

Assumptions based on the abject absence of evidence. Oddly, you can base fervent belief on same.

Jakkass wrote: »

I have suggested, from a Christian POV that humanity in general is deserving of death. I quoted a passage from Romans earlier to show this in the New Testament. Thankfully due to grace we can be forgiven and we can be reunited to God to live a new life for Him. This is the Christian take on the subject of sin (in general). If one wishes to discuss the Orthodox Jewish point of view concerning it, that is their prerogative.

What an inadequate and unscrupulous explanation for such vile hatred. Shame on you.

Jakkass wrote: »

Genesis and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

I think you'll find that they are. It would take the wild imagination of a child to find otherwise.

Jakkass wrote: »

I only want to do this discussion with respect, both on my side and on yours.

It's rather mind-boggling how you can talk of respect, having said in a previous breath that homosexuals deserve execution for reason only of their homosexuality. No doubt you believe your religion to be a rock of morality, however you exemplified just how pernicious and downright warped it really is. This is an appropriate time to refer to the thread topic itself and conclude that innocent children should not be schooled in such vile filth.

Non-denominational schooling, based on science and truth is key to progression of this species.

philologos

Jarndyce wrote: »

Assumptions based on the abject absence of evidence. Oddly, you can base fervent belief on same.

If you wish to ignore what has previously been stated, go ahead.

Jarndyce wrote: »

What an inadequate and unscrupulous explanation for such vile hatred. Shame on you.

What part of "we all" is difficult for you? - I don't believe I am in any different a situation to that of homosexuals.

Jarndyce wrote: »

I think you'll find that they are. It would take the wild imagination of a child to find otherwise.

Actually, it's a part of maturity to be able to read a text and try and establish what it is actually saying rather than what people purport it say. I've gone through my reasoning as to my current position on Genesis 1, quite thoroughly.

Jarndyce wrote: »

It's rather mind-boggling how you can talk of respect, having said in a previous breath that homosexuals deserve execution for reason only of their homosexuality. No doubt you believe your religion to be a rock of morality, however you exemplified just how pernicious and downright warped it really is. This is an appropriate time to refer to the thread topic itself and conclude that innocent children should not be schooled in such vile filth.

I've shown you nothing but respect in this discussion. Indeed, you are intentionally misinterpreting my posts now which is unfortunately dishonest. What I said was:

I have suggested, from a Christian POV that humanity in general is deserving of death.

God gives life, and as far as I am concerned He has the right to take it away if we violate His standards for living in the world which He created. However, through Jesus Christ, we can have forgiveness, and we can live for Him. I am a sinner, and so is everyone else. I have no precedent to say that I am better than anyone else.

Jarndyce wrote: »

denominational schooling, based on science and truth is key to progression of this species.

I have no issue with non-denominational schooling along side other alternatives. I've said that loud and clear at this point.